Let's talk casino gambling! (1 Viewer)

[soothsayer]

Whenever I read books or online resources about casino gaming, odds are always presented as long-term outcomes. In other words, if you play the game over time, here is your expected outcome. They talk about house edge for each game, optimal strategy, etc. It all makes perfect sense.

My question is this - do the standard rules apply to a single session gambler? If a casual bettor hits the casino for a couple of hours, should that person bet to optimal strategy, or should that person play differently (more aggressively) in an attempt to win big in the short-term?

Example - at a blackjack table a person shouldn't split 10s. But what if I'm playing just for an hour, and the dealer is showing a 6? Why not get as much money on the table as possible to take advantage of that short-term winning opportunity?

Example - Let it Ride Poker usually has two bonus spots - a 3-card bonus spot and another bonus that pays big on a great hand. Over time the bonus spot is a loser, big time. But for a short-term player, why not maximize the chance of a big hit?

I guess where I'm going with this is that every book or site I've read that address optimal gambling strategy appears to assume a long-term play - that someone will play a lot and the best bet is to reduce the house edge as much as possible OVER TIME (seemingly advocating treading water until a hot streak is hit). But I'm not sure that advice applies to many who go to Vegas, for example, for a fun weekend. Should the weekend warrior really play things by the book?

Any examples of odds/strategies/big plays, etc. that either support or go against optimal play will be appreciated.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I've often wondered this same thing.

For example, in blackjack, why not just walk in and put up a max bet on one hand instead of trying to win consistently over time to reach that amount? What are your odds of winning one hand of blackjack? For some reason that appeals to me more than doing it over a long period of time. Obviously if you're there for the "entertainment" of playing for a longer period, that's one thing. But I'm really just there for the "entertainment" of winning some money.

 

[dhockster]

Whenever I read books or online resources about casino gaming, odds are always presented as long-term outcomes. In other words, if you play the game over time, here is your expected outcome. They talk about house edge for each game, optimal strategy, etc. It all makes perfect sense.My question is this - do the standard rules apply to a single session gambler? If a casual bettor hits the casino for a couple of hours, should that person bet to optimal strategy, or should that person play differently (more aggressively) in an attempt to win big in the short-term?Example - at a blackjack table a person shouldn't split 10s. But what if I'm playing just for an hour, and the dealer is showing a 6? Why not get as much money on the table as possible to take advantage of that short-term winning opportunity?Example - Let it Ride Poker usually has two bonus spots - a 3-card bonus spot and another bonus that pays big on a great hand. Over time the bonus spot is a loser, big time. But for a short-term player, why not maximize the chance of a big hit?I guess where I'm going with this is that every book or site I've read that address optimal gambling strategy appears to assume a long-term play - that someone will play a lot and the best bet is to reduce the house edge as much as possible OVER TIME (seemingly advocating treading water until a hot streak is hit). But I'm not sure that advice applies to many who go to Vegas, for example, for a fun weekend. Should the weekend warrior really play things by the book?Any examples of odds/strategies/big plays, etc. that either support or go against optimal play will be appreciated.

The optimal strategy which gives you the best odds to win in the long-run, also gives you the best odds to win in the short-run. You will just see more variations in your results in the short-term.Playing something other than optimal strategy is going to make you more likely to lose in the short-run than if you played optimal strategy. Will you lose if you play other than optimal strategy? Not necessarily, you are just more likely to lose.

 

[soothsayer]

For example, here is a great site that lists odds for nearly all Vegas casino games - Wizard of Odds.

Let it Ride Poker is a game I've decided I like. The opportunity to pull a great hand seems to be there making a short-term win feel possible. There are certainly games with better odds over time (Blackjack) but Let It Ride seems like a much better game for having fun while actually having a shot at a short-term windfall.

Here is what that site says about the "Side Bet" I referenced above:

"The Side Bet - Some, but not all, casinos allow a side bet of $1 for which you will receive an additional payoff with certain paying hands. This is a sucker bet that should be avoided.Based on a small sampling of casinos in Las Vegas and Laughlin the house edge varies from 13.77% (Lady Luck) to36.52% (New York, New York)."

Over time the side bet is a horrible one. But if looking for a short-term score? Why not?

That's my question I guess - should one throw caution to the wind if playing for a short-term potential score or is optimal strategy always the best?

 

[Sarnoff]

Your whole life is a single session.

 

[Fat Nick]

I think looking at the "throw it all down on one hand" strategy would need some more info to be an accurate comparison. That is, if you DON'T throw it all down, how long do you intend to play? There's a "penalty" for playing over a longer period of time. Let's say the odds are 60/40 for the house.

If you start with $100, you would theoretically lose 20% per hand played. (difference of 60% vs. 40%) So each successive hand, you'd stand to statistically lose 20% per hand. More hands = more possibility of losing money. So your best odds of winning are to just bet it all on one hand.

I think that if you're looking to make money, and you're prepared to lose all of it, then yeah, just throw it down on one hand. You get your true odds of winning on one hand, no compounding.

If you play it out over a long period, you theoretically will always lose all your money over an infinite period of time. But if you enjoy gambling and are willing to pay a premium for a longer playing time, do this. Odds are you will play for a while, and possibly leave with -some- money (or possibly more money).

But I think that you'll find better odds in someone doubling their money betting big on 1 hand and winning than sitting at a table for a night and playing for hours.

ETA: I play Black Jack at casinos because I enjoy it, and I can play for a while with minimal cash (most of the time). That said, I very often play for a few hours. Then, if I'm up, I bet my winnings on a color/odd/even in Roulette. If I win, I effectively won double. If I lose, I got to gamble for free. If I lose at Black Jack, I'll sometimes do the same to try and break even....but for me, Roulette, 1 spin, is my shot at a comeback or big win.

 

[hooter311]

Your whole life is a single session.

 

[Joseph]

For example, here is a great site that lists odds for nearly all Vegas casino games - Wizard of Odds.

Let it Ride Poker is a game I've decided I like. The opportunity to pull a great hand seems to be there making a short-term win feel possible. There are certainly games with better odds over time (Blackjack) but Let It Ride seems like a much better game for having fun while actually having a shot at a short-term windfall.

Here is what that site says about the "Side Bet" I referenced above:

"The Side Bet - Some, but not all, casinos allow a side bet of $1 for which you will receive an additional payoff with certain paying hands. This is a sucker bet that should be avoided.Based on a small sampling of casinos in Las Vegas and Laughlin the house edge varies from 13.77% (Lady Luck) to36.52% (New York, New York)."

Over time the side bet is a horrible one. But if looking for a short-term score? Why not?

That's my question I guess - should one throw caution to the wind if playing for a short-term potential score or is optimal strategy always the best?

If all you're looking at is the ability to win a bunch of money in a short time with pretty low odds, why not just plunk a bunch down on a number on a roulette wheel? You'll probably get the highest potential windfall in that game, and you definitely won't have to sit around waiting to lose your money.

 

[soothsayer]

The optimal strategy which gives you the best odds to win in the long-run, also gives you the best odds to win in the short-run. You will just see more variations in your results in the short-term.Playing something other than optimal strategy is going to make you more likely to lose in the short-run than if you played optimal strategy. Will you lose if you play other than optimal strategy? Not necessarily, you are just more likely to lose.

So with the above in mind, let's talk blackjack. If I sit at a table for two hours, playing 100% by the book, it is very likely that I'll do slightly worse than treading water during my session. It's entirely possible that I'd lose all my money within those 2 hours, and it's entirely possible that I'd go on an amazing hot streak during that short time. But the odds of either one of those things happening seems remote at best. So if I sit down with say $400 playing $10 hands (I know, not very FBG like), it's likely I'd leave the table with somewhere in the $250-$550 range. Contrast that with a game like Let It Ride. It seems that given the same $400 and 2 hours, I'm likely to either leave the table down $400 or leave up $2000. In other words, it isn't about just hanging around for a streak, it's about hitting something big during that short time at the table. I imagine you could argue a slot machine is the same way if not more so.

 

[ODoyleRules]

You're on to something here, the house edge in blackjack (6 deck) is known to be 0.64%, but if you're only playing 100 hands or so, the house edge is actually around 0.2% so you should take on bigger risks.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I would only plunk down one big bet on something like a hand of blackjack or a color in roulette. In Let It Ride, I would just try to tread water waiting for that big hand to come in with the big payout. There is no big payout on one hand in blackjack (as far as odds go).

 

[FavreCo]

I've often wondered this same thing.

For example, in blackjack, why not just walk in and put up a max bet on one hand instead of trying to win consistently over time to reach that amount? What are your odds of winning one hand of blackjack? For some reason that appeals to me more than doing it over a long period of time. Obviously if you're there for the "entertainment" of playing for a longer period, that's one thing. But I'm really just there for the "entertainment" of winning some money.

If you are going to do that, then sit at the table that deals 1 deck, bet the minimum, then when the deck has a boatload of 10's, do this.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I've often wondered this same thing.

For example, in blackjack, why not just walk in and put up a max bet on one hand instead of trying to win consistently over time to reach that amount? What are your odds of winning one hand of blackjack? For some reason that appeals to me more than doing it over a long period of time. Obviously if you're there for the "entertainment" of playing for a longer period, that's one thing. But I'm really just there for the "entertainment" of winning some money.

If you are going to do that, then sit at the table that deals 1 deck, bet the minimum, then when the deck has a boatload of 10's, do this.

Don't they frown on counting cards? And aren't the minimums much higher at one-deck tables?

 

[soothsayer]

If all you're looking at is the ability to win a bunch of money in a short time with pretty low odds, why not just plunk a bunch down on a number on a roulette wheel? You'll probably get the highest potential windfall in that game, and you definitely won't have to sit around waiting to lose your money.

I think that playing blackjack for hours on end is one extreme, and putting all one's money down on a one spin of the roulette wheel is the other. 36#s + 1 or 2 zeros so you're looking at at 1 in 38 chance of a big win. I wonder how that would compare to say, 38 hands of Let it Ride or 38 blackjack hands. I'm probably in the middle in terms of what I'm looking for at a casino. I want to spend some time at the table, but I'd also like some feeling of "a big hand could happen". Blackjack can't give me that feeling, no matter how many times I play it. And one spin at a roulette wheel doesn't scratch the "sit at a table for a while" itch. So is "optimal" strategy truly optimal for all players in all situations as has been stated by someone earlier in the thread?

 

[firstseason1988]

When I am hot, I bet more. When I am cold I bet less.

I feel like it narrows the edge.

 

[eoMMan]

Your whole life is a single session.

Although I agree and it shouldn't really matter if you are up or down in the short term, a lot of players would be better off to leave when they are up because their play changes now that they have chips in front of them. In poker, they might get cute and make careless bluffs and or make dumb calls thinking, "I'm up....I can afford this call." It's a mistake. Typical poker wisdom says to leave if you are feeling like you can't play your best (tired, sick, etc.) and you should stay if the game is still really good (fishy.....and assuming you are still playing your best).

 

[soothsayer]

You're on to something here, the house edge in blackjack (6 deck) is known to be 0.64%, but if you're only playing 100 hands or so, the house edge is actually around 0.2% so you should take on bigger risks.

Why is this true? So what strategy should change for the 100-hand player. More doubling down? Different splitting rules? Or would altering play just make the house edge even worse?

 

[bostonfred]

If you're there to gamble as aggressively as possible, and if you lose the money you brought with you, you're done, then read up on tournament blackjack. See how much you can make on a short buy in, and if you lose you lose. Go there planning to spend three hundred bucks and just see how much you can make. there are a lot of close calls where you give up a small edge by playing suboptimally, and the chnces are good that poor bankroll management is a bigger leak in your game than standing on 16 against a ten.

 

[ODoyleRules]

You're on to something here, the house edge in blackjack (6 deck) is known to be 0.64%, but if you're only playing 100 hands or so, the house edge is actually around 0.2% so you should take on bigger risks.

Why is this true? So what strategy should change for the 100-hand player. More doubling down? Different splitting rules? Or would altering play just make the house edge even worse?

I was joking. Play by the book if you want your best chances at winning regardless of the # of hands. If you're just there for fun, then have fun and don't get caught up in any statistical analysis. If I'm in Vegas for one night, I'm not going to force myself to play craps with 10x odds at a dull table just because the house edge is 0.2% less than a roulette table, I just go where I'm having fun and move on if I'm not.

 

[FavreCo]

I've often wondered this same thing.

For example, in blackjack, why not just walk in and put up a max bet on one hand instead of trying to win consistently over time to reach that amount? What are your odds of winning one hand of blackjack? For some reason that appeals to me more than doing it over a long period of time. Obviously if you're there for the "entertainment" of playing for a longer period, that's one thing. But I'm really just there for the "entertainment" of winning some money.

If you are going to do that, then sit at the table that deals 1 deck, bet the minimum, then when the deck has a boatload of 10's, do this.

Don't they frown on counting cards? And aren't the minimums much higher at one-deck tables?

Yes they do but if it's a 1 shot deal, they likely won't do anything about it. If you count, and you vary your bets just a little, they won't do anything.....until you start winning.It's a 1 shot deal and you can play single deck $5 at LV still.

 

[soothsayer]

Not to hijack my own thread, but does anyone here play Baccarat?

 

[fred_1_15301]

Whenever I read books or online resources about casino gaming, odds are always presented as long-term outcomes. In other words, if you play the game over time, here is your expected outcome. They talk about house edge for each game, optimal strategy, etc. It all makes perfect sense.My question is this - do the standard rules apply to a single session gambler? If a casual bettor hits the casino for a couple of hours, should that person bet to optimal strategy, or should that person play differently (more aggressively) in an attempt to win big in the short-term?Example - at a blackjack table a person shouldn't split 10s. But what if I'm playing just for an hour, and the dealer is showing a 6? Why not get as much money on the table as possible to take advantage of that short-term winning opportunity?Example - Let it Ride Poker usually has two bonus spots - a 3-card bonus spot and another bonus that pays big on a great hand. Over time the bonus spot is a loser, big time. But for a short-term player, why not maximize the chance of a big hit?I guess where I'm going with this is that every book or site I've read that address optimal gambling strategy appears to assume a long-term play - that someone will play a lot and the best bet is to reduce the house edge as much as possible OVER TIME (seemingly advocating treading water until a hot streak is hit). But I'm not sure that advice applies to many who go to Vegas, for example, for a fun weekend. Should the weekend warrior really play things by the book?Any examples of odds/strategies/big plays, etc. that either support or go against optimal play will be appreciated.

Regarding table games, always play optimally. Always!!!

 

[LittleLarry]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.

I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

 

[BeTheMatch]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

I've always wondered about that. I just assumed you could go into your wallet for more cash. That sucks, and is a good point.

 

[chet]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

I've always wondered about that. I just assumed you could go into your wallet for more cash. That sucks, and is a good point.

Never seen this in Vegas. Is that a rule specific to AC? If so, just another reason AC sucks.

 

[Warrior]

Is this really a difficult concept? 49% over time is equally as good as 49% all on one hand. You play the exact same way in either scenario. Do you expect picking Heads is a better/worse strategy in the short term than picking Heads if you flip the cion 100 times? You guys are smarter than this.

 

[Moe.]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

I've always wondered about that. I just assumed you could go into your wallet for more cash. That sucks, and is a good point.

I've never seen/heard of that happening before. Every casino I've ever been to will allow you to get cash to double.

 

[Moe.]

You're on to something here, the house edge in blackjack (6 deck) is known to be 0.64%, but if you're only playing 100 hands or so, the house edge is actually around 0.2% so you should take on bigger risks.

Why is this true? So what strategy should change for the 100-hand player. More doubling down? Different splitting rules? Or would altering play just make the house edge even worse?

I was joking. Play by the book if you want your best chances at winning regardless of the # of hands. If you're just there for fun, then have fun and don't get caught up in any statistical analysis. If I'm in Vegas for one night, I'm not going to force myself to play craps with 10x odds at a dull table just because the house edge is 0.2% less than a roulette table, I just go where I'm having fun and move on if I'm not.

Just be mindful of the people at the table with you if you're playing something like blackjack.

 

[Arizona Ron]

Not to hijack my own thread, but does anyone here play Baccarat?

I have for about 7 years.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

A hi or low bet on a dice game called Sic Bo would give you a 48.6% chance of winning a 1:1 bet. That's pretty good if you want to take a one-time shot at walking out a big winner. I looked around for a better bet once and couldn't find one.

 

[bostonfred]

Is this really a difficult concept? 49% over time is equally as good as 49% all on one hand. You play the exact same way in either scenario. Do you expect picking Heads is a better/worse strategy in the short term than picking Heads if you flip the cion 100 times? You guys are smarter than this.

1) The odds of winning a hand in blackjack are not 49%, they are much worse. But your ability to win more than your bet back on doubles, splits and blackjacks cut the house edge down. 2) the house edge is not 49/51 once the cards are dealt. Say someone kidnaps your wife and kids and demands more money than you have. You sell your house and everything you own and bring all the money to a blackjack table. You put half your money on the first bet in case you have a chance to double or split. You are dealt two 8s and the dealer has a ten. Do you split? I don't. Splitting eights is a losing play, its just less of a losing play than standing or hitting. It always sucks toget 16 against a ten, but at least you can do something about it.

 

[curta269]

I worked in the casino business for a long time, so here is what I know.

Blackjack, Craps, and Baccarat are the best odds for a player.

To me, Baccarat is really boring, so I don't play it.

Yes, you can just throw down your whole bankroll on one hand of Blackjack and hope to win. It is better to grind it out, wait for a hot streak, then fire at it. This is what I do. Once I win two hands in a row, I start pressing my bet up. Then, I start back at the minimum when I lose. Or, you can count cards, but it is hard to do when you are drinking beer!! Trust me, I have tried enough times!

If you really just want to make one bet, go to Craps. If you have $100, put $10 on the pass line, then use the rest for odds once the point is established.

As for Let-It-Ride, I was dealing to one person one night. It was a $5 minimum table and he didn't play any of the $1 side bets. He played 18 hands and did not get paid one time. He walked away with his last $10 only because you have to bet $15 to start! Not that this situation always happens, but it was rare for me to see people win playing it. 3 Card poker seemed to have a better shot of people hitting a decent hand like 3 of a Kind or Straight Flush.

 

[No. 16]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

All casinos I play at (CA and NV) will allow you to take money from your wallet. They just have ot change it in chips

 

[curta269]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

All casinos I play at (CA and NV) will allow you to take money from your wallet. They just have ot change it in chips

Either that dealer was just being a jerk or the casino had really strange rules. Every casino I have been to or worked at let you get cash out of your wallet to bet, even in the middle of the hand. It is stupid not to let someone do this as the house will most likely win more money.

 

[goonsquad]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

All casinos I play at (CA and NV) will allow you to take money from your wallet. They just have ot change it in chips

Mid-hand? I have never seen that allowed.

 

[No. 16]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

All casinos I play at (CA and NV) will allow you to take money from your wallet. They just have ot change it in chips

Mid-hand? I have never seen that allowed.

Where do you play?I have never had any problems taking money from my wallet to double down or split.

 

[goonsquad]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

All casinos I play at (CA and NV) will allow you to take money from your wallet. They just have ot change it in chips

Mid-hand? I have never seen that allowed.

Where do you play?I have never had any problems taking money from my wallet to double down or split.

Just clarifying. Perhaps I've simply never seen the issue come up and assumed it wasn't allowed.

 

[soothsayer]

Not to hijack my own thread, but does anyone here play Baccarat?

I have for about 7 years.

Do you have any tips for a newb? I've played for a couple of days on an ipad game but would like to hear some pointers before jumping in at a table. TIA.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Not to hijack my own thread, but does anyone here play Baccarat?

I have for about 7 years.

Do you have any tips for a newb? I've played for a couple of days on an ipad game but would like to hear some pointers before jumping in at a table. TIA.

Some of the most interesting people in the world play baccarat.

 

[Arizona Ron]

Not to hijack my own thread, but does anyone here play Baccarat?

I have for about 7 years.

Do you have any tips for a newb? I've played for a couple of days on an ipad game but would like to hear some pointers before jumping in at a table. TIA.

It's not a real strategy and I'm assuming you know how scoring/payouts work but I usually make a player bet of $500 and I bet the pair and tie for $50 each. If the table has beat-by bonus, I'll throw the minimum on it too (e.g. $10).Baccarat is kind of a boring game with not much strategy; I usually play when the craps tables are cold.A better game to learn IMO is Asia Poker; it’s like Pai Gow with an 3rd tier. Great odds for the players.

 

[hooter311]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

I've always wondered about that. I just assumed you could go into your wallet for more cash. That sucks, and is a good point.

I've never been told I couldn't put more cash on the table. Never been to AC, but have played in Vegas and Indian Casinos plenty.One good way to gain an extra edge at the table is if you ever see someone gunshy to double down when they should, just ask them if you can use your money and flip them a tip when it cashes. I use this plenty in the local casinos, probably the best +EV play I make.

 

[jon_mx]

If you went to a casino with a $1000, the best chance to double your money would be to go to the roulette wheel and put it down on red or black, then walk away. Over the long haul, the casino is going to get you.

 

[jon_mx]

You never want to make one large wager in blackjack. If you do want to make a big bet, split your money in two and have that money available to double down or split.I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

I've always wondered about that. I just assumed you could go into your wallet for more cash. That sucks, and is a good point.

I've never been told I couldn't put more cash on the table. Never been to AC, but have played in Vegas and Indian Casinos plenty.One good way to gain an extra edge at the table is if you ever see someone gunshy to double down when they should, just ask them if you can use your money and flip them a tip when it cashes. I use this plenty in the local casinos, probably the best +EV play I make.

I pulled money out of my pocket dozens of times. Never ever heard a rule like that in blackjack, and I have played everywhere.

 

[hooter311]

If you went to a casino with a $1000, the best chance to double your money would be to go to the roulette wheel and put it down on red or black, then walk away. Over the long haul, the casino is going to get you.

If your going to try to make a 50/50 bet, at least make it on the pass line at the craps table.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

If you went to a casino with a $1000, the best chance to double your money would be to go to the roulette wheel and put it down on red or black, then walk away. Over the long haul, the casino is going to get you.

If your going to try to make a 50/50 bet, at least make it on the pass line at the craps table.

It becomes an even better bet if you wait for a shooter wearing a lucky sombrero.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You're on to something here, the house edge in blackjack (6 deck) is known to be 0.64%, but if you're only playing 100 hands or so, the house edge is actually around 0.2% so you should take on bigger risks.

Why is this true? So what strategy should change for the 100-hand player. More doubling down? Different splitting rules? Or would altering play just make the house edge even worse?

I was joking.

Thank goodness.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I guess where I'm going with this is that every book or site I've read that address optimal gambling strategy appears to assume a long-term play - that someone will play a lot and the best bet is to reduce the house edge as much as possible OVER TIME (seemingly advocating treading water until a hot streak is hit).

I don't think that's what they assume. I think they assume that you want the best percentage return that you can get on any given bet. They assume that if you bet $100, you'd prefer to lose fifty cents on average instead of seventy-five cents.This is not a realistic assumption all the time, however, for the reason you point out. Some people would prefer to increase their variance even if it decreases their expectation — in which case it might make sense, for example, to split tens. (After all, if somebody really wants to maximize his expectation at a table game, without regard to variance, his best option would be to simply not play. But what's the fun in that?)

 

[soothsayer]

Some people would prefer to increase their variance even if it decreases their expectation — in which case it might make sense, for example, to split tens.

This is exactly what I've been trying to get at without being so concise. As a weekend warrior, I'm willing to sacrifice some expectation to increase variance. So if that is true, what are some games/strategies to do this without sliding all the way to a one-hand bet on RED or playing one series of rolls at the craps table? What's the middle ground between perfect play and a lottery ticket?

 

[Raider Nation]

I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I walked up to a blackjack table in AC once and put a $50 bill on the bet circle. The dealer promptly dealt me two aces. He wouldn't allow me to go into my wallet to get more money to split them. I lost

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

It depends. If the rule is "no splitting aces," that's an unfavorable rule, but not unheard of. If the rule is "no going into your wallet," that's pretty crazy, and something I've never heard of before.